Re: getting a modern `more`

Re: getting a modern `more`

[Bruce Dubbs]

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> in a random conversation, Eric mentioned that he still maintains his own 
> version of more (which at this point, has been rewritten a time or two).  i 
> mentioned that the `more` found in util-linux dates back to his original 
> version.  i'm hoping there can be a melding of minds here so we can all benefit 
> from his work :).

Does anyone still use 'more'?  The only thing needed is a symlink to 
'less': http://www.greenwoodsoftware.com/less/

Are there any distros that don't provide 'less' by default?

What value added does 'more' provide?  I'd think development time would 
be better used elsewhere.  To me, 'more' was developed in the era of 
paper terminals (e.g. Teletype) and it is time to retire it.

   -- Bruce

Re: getting a modern `more`

[Sami Kerola]

On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 00:12, Bruce Dubbs <bruce.dubbs@gmail.com> wrote:
> Does anyone still use 'more'?  The only thing needed is a symlink to 'less':
> http://www.greenwoodsoftware.com/less/

I do.

> Are there any distros that don't provide 'less' by default?
>
> What value added does 'more' provide?

It does not clear screen when 'q' is pressed, which is the main reason
I sometime choose to use more.

> I'd think development time would be
> better used elsewhere.  To me, 'more' was developed in the era of paper
> terminals (e.g. Teletype) and it is time to retire it.

I appreciate highly when someone volunteers to maintain & develop
something superficially old and obsolete. Earlier one might have said
that why bother to make vi better now when emacs is so great, which
lead eventually to vim. Who knows how much better more might be in
future in comparison to less if people who like it have change of
making it such.

-- 
   Sami Kerola
   http://www.iki.fi/kerolasa/

Re: getting a modern `more`

[Bruce Dubbs]

Sami Kerola wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 00:12, Bruce Dubbs <bruce.dubbs@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Does anyone still use 'more'?  The only thing needed is a symlink to 'less':
>> http://www.greenwoodsoftware.com/less/
> 
> I do.
> 
>> Are there any distros that don't provide 'less' by default?
>>
>> What value added does 'more' provide?
> 
> It does not clear screen when 'q' is pressed, which is the main reason
> I sometime choose to use more.

"COMPATIBILITY WITH MORE
   If  the  environment  variable LESS_IS_MORE is set to 1, or if the
   program is invoked via a file link named "more", less behaves
   (mostly) in  conformance  with  the  POSIX "more" command
   specification."

>> I'd think development time would be
>> better used elsewhere.  To me, 'more' was developed in the era of paper
>> terminals (e.g. Teletype) and it is time to retire it.
> 
> I appreciate highly when someone volunteers to maintain & develop
> something superficially old and obsolete. Earlier one might have said
> that why bother to make vi better now when emacs is so great, which
> lead eventually to vim. Who knows how much better more might be in
> future in comparison to less if people who like it have change of
> making it such.

You have a point here, but I would certainly suggest that the volunteer 
start with the most robust current software.  Of course there is nothing 
wrong with reviewing the older code for missing features.

   -- Bruce

Re: getting a modern `more`

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 453 bytes --]

On Friday 13 January 2012 19:22:15 Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> "COMPATIBILITY WITH MORE
>    If  the  environment  variable LESS_IS_MORE is set to 1, or if the
>    program is invoked via a file link named "more", less behaves
>    (mostly) in  conformance  with  the  POSIX "more" command
>    specification."

you've indirectly quoted one reason for needing "more" -- POSIX wants it.
http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/more.html
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: getting a modern `more`

[Bruce Dubbs]

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 13 January 2012 19:22:15 Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> "COMPATIBILITY WITH MORE
>>    If  the  environment  variable LESS_IS_MORE is set to 1, or if the
>>    program is invoked via a file link named "more", less behaves
>>    (mostly) in  conformance  with  the  POSIX "more" command
>>    specification."
> 
> you've indirectly quoted one reason for needing "more" -- POSIX wants it.
> http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/more.html

I guess my intent wasn't clear.  I wasn't advocating removing "more" 
from distros, I was saying that it's implementation via "less" is much 
more flexible and wasn't really required in util-linux.

I suppose the case can be made that 'more' at about 27K is much smaller 
and more efficient than 'less' at about 327K, but in the era of TB 
drives, I wouldn't think that would make a significant difference.  Both 
programs are generally used by users at the command line - rarely in a 
script.

That said, if you want to spend the effort to update and maintain a 
program that duplicates functionality, than that's up to you.  I just 
think you may want to be careful of NIH thinking.

   -- Bruce

Re: getting a modern `more`

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 442 bytes --]

On Friday 13 January 2012 22:17:41 Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> That said, if you want to spend the effort to update and maintain a
> program that duplicates functionality, than that's up to you.  I just
> think you may want to be careful of NIH thinking.

the work was already been done, and technically speaking, one could say that 
everything other than "more" is NIH thinking ;).  can you name a pager that is 
older than "more" ?
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: getting a modern `more`

[Bruce Dubbs]

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 13 January 2012 22:17:41 Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> That said, if you want to spend the effort to update and maintain a
>> program that duplicates functionality, than that's up to you.  I just
>> think you may want to be careful of NIH thinking.
> 
> the work was already been done, and technically speaking, one could say that 
> everything other than "more" is NIH thinking ;).  can you name a pager that is 
> older than "more" ?

No, of course not.  Please understand that I have no connection with the 
'less' project.   I don't know why it forked, but it too has been around 
  since at least 1995 and appears to pre-date Linux (and Util-Linux). 
The website goes back to 'Version 290' in 1995.

I've been working with computers since before Unix (and Linux) and know 
a little computing history.  Before 'Glass TTYs' there were paper 
terminals and I suspect 'more' was designed with those paper terminals 
in mind.  'Less' appears to have been designed with terminals such as 
the VT100 in mind.  Sometimes it's beneficial to redesign a program when 
something new comes along rather than patch an old design.

   -- Bruce

Re: getting a modern `more`

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 873 bytes --]

On Saturday 14 January 2012 12:30:28 Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> No, of course not.  Please understand that I have no connection with the
> 'less' project.   I don't know why it forked, but it too has been around
>   since at least 1995 and appears to pre-date Linux (and Util-Linux).
> The website goes back to 'Version 290' in 1995.

yes, but the util-linux projected picked up `more` which predates both

> I've been working with computers since before Unix (and Linux) and know
> a little computing history.  Before 'Glass TTYs' there were paper
> terminals and I suspect 'more' was designed with those paper terminals
> in mind.  'Less' appears to have been designed with terminals such as
> the VT100 in mind.  Sometimes it's beneficial to redesign a program when
> something new comes along rather than patch an old design.

which is what Eric has done with his more
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: getting a modern `more`

[Bruce Dubbs]

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Saturday 14 January 2012 12:30:28 Bruce Dubbs wrote:

>> Before 'Glass TTYs' there were paper terminals and I suspect 'more'
>> was designed with those paper terminals in mind. 'Less' appears to
>> have been designed with terminals such as the VT100 in mind.
>> Sometimes it's beneficial to redesign a program when something new
>> comes along rather than patch an old design.

> which is what Eric has done with his more

What capabilities/advantages are added that are not in 'less'?

   -- Bruce

Re: getting a modern `more`

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 738 bytes --]

On Saturday 14 January 2012 17:19:01 Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Saturday 14 January 2012 12:30:28 Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> >> Before 'Glass TTYs' there were paper terminals and I suspect 'more'
> >> was designed with those paper terminals in mind. 'Less' appears to
> >> have been designed with terminals such as the VT100 in mind.
> >> Sometimes it's beneficial to redesign a program when something new
> >> comes along rather than patch an old design.
> > 
> > which is what Eric has done with his more
> 
> What capabilities/advantages are added that are not in 'less'?

i don't know, but i don't think it matters.  Eric likes maintaining the code 
regardless and he plans on doing it anyways.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: getting a modern `more`

[Bruce Dubbs]

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Saturday 14 January 2012 17:19:01 Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> On Saturday 14 January 2012 12:30:28 Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>>> Before 'Glass TTYs' there were paper terminals and I suspect 'more'
>>>> was designed with those paper terminals in mind. 'Less' appears to
>>>> have been designed with terminals such as the VT100 in mind.
>>>> Sometimes it's beneficial to redesign a program when something new
>>>> comes along rather than patch an old design.
>>> which is what Eric has done with his more

>> What capabilities/advantages are added that are not in 'less'?

> i don't know, but i don't think it matters.  Eric likes maintaining the code 
> regardless and he plans on doing it anyways.

OK, I understand 'scratch the itch'.  I was just stating that I didn't 
think the benefit was worth the effort.  Press on.

   -- Bruce